Conjunction of Criminal
Opportunity – Classic
January 2008
Prof. Paul Ekblom
5Is, CCO, CLAIMED and definitions in depth of partnership, crime prevention and
community safety are all covered in Crime Prevention, Security and Community Safety
Using the 5Is Framework, by Paul Ekblom (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2011).
See www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=296569
and author’s blog at http://5isframework.wordpress.com/.
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity –
Classic
Prof. Paul Ekblom
The CCO framework is equivalent to the Crime
Triangle (Target/victim, Offender, Place) but widerranging and more detailed. It supplies a map of 11
immediate causal pathways which come together to
make criminal events happen, and 11 counterpart
principles of intervention which seek to block, deflect
or weaken those causes.
that each of these higher causes has to act through
one or more of the components of the CCO before it
can ‘make a criminal event happen’.
CCO can be used alone or in tandem with other
frameworks in this suite (eg 5Is, M&S).
CCO offers the following:
One major purpose of the framework was originally to
integrate theories of crime causation by covering both
offender and crime situation in a single schema which
avoided confusing and superficial distinctions such as
‘situational versus social’; and to do likewise for crime
prevention approaches oriented towards these same
two poles. (Even today, a deep cultural divide exists
between researchers and practitioners who on the one
side focus on situational causes and interventions, and
on the other, offender-oriented ones.)
Another purpose was to provide a way of considering
crime prevention across all institutional settings,
both ‘civil’ and justice-based (refuting false but
frequently-encountered dichotomies such as ‘it’s not
prevention but deterrence… or law enforcement…
or punishment’). The overall vision remains one of
supplying a rigorous and comprehensive schema
and language to help practitioners, policymakers,
researchers and theorists alike.
CCO is an ‘ecological’ framework because it combines
individuals (offenders, preventers, promoters) and
their environment. It integrates a range of theories
including Routine Activities, aspects of Environmental
Criminology, Rational Choice, and various other
psychological perspectives on offending. It does not
directly incorporate higher-level sociological or cultural
causes of crime (although there is an interest in
studying complex, emergent processes as these build
up from elemental causes), but adopts the perspective
• Covers volume crime, violence, antisocial behavior,
drugs, organised crime, terrorism, cybercrime
• Maps immediate causes of crime, integrates
theories, revealing gaps, overlaps and conflicts
between these
• Maps entire range of possible preventive
intervention principles and (in the context of the
wider 5Is process model) describes individual
methods in ways that are conducive to intelligent
replication
• From a ‘Scientific Realist’ or ‘Realistic Evaluation’
perspective, supplies a basic map of the
immediate contextual factors which are necessary
preconditions for crime prevention mechanisms to
be triggered
• Provides a means of articulating ‘squishy’
concepts/terms eg those such as ‘territoriality’ in
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
• Guides offender interviews with a schedule
covering both ‘view from the offender’ questions
about the crime situation as they see it, and
‘view of the offender’ self-reporting of motives,
resources, criminogenic life circumstances etc
• Organises and defines perpetrator techniques/
Modus Operandi in terms of how offenders cope
with or exploit the situational elements of CCO,
guiding collection of ‘preventive intelligence’
• Guides investigation of crime (extending the
familiar ‘means, motive and opportunity’ to commit
an offence)
1
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
• Supports futures work – crime proofing, crime risk
assessment, crime impact assessment etc [see
Crime risk assessment/ crime impact assessment
web page; also M&S page]
Background
In the early 1990s a fairly masochistic exercise was
undertaken to classify several thousand local crime
prevention schemes that were being implemented
in the context of the UK Government’s Safer Cities
Programme (the sadism came when others were
required to read the resultant documentation).
One purpose was to try to put ‘like with like’ when
evaluating scheme impact. The diversity of those
schemes was challenging: they covered a range of
institutional settings and preventive mechanisms,
and no available framework was able to handle the
complexity or the breadth. Likewise, attempting to
determine exactly what the individual schemes were
endeavouring to do, even with detailed entries in a
management information system, proved difficult –
there was not a universal, rigorous and consistent
schema or language by which the preventive
interventions could be articulated. This not only
inhibited intelligent replication of any success stories,
it also constrained the realisation and monitoring
of the original scheme as it unfolded. Therefore, it
was decided to develop a new framework purposedesigned for the job.
At about this time, Nick Tilley began introducing
‘Scientific Realist’ perspectives to the crime prevention
domain and to Safer Cities in particular (eg Tilley 1993).
The SR paradigm of the desired preventive outcome
only being achieved if causal mechanisms were
triggered in necessary contextual conditions (like a
match only lighting a fire if dry wood was present and
wind absent) shaped the orientation of the emerging
framework. This therefore is centred on analytic causal
and contextual factors rather than simply being a
superficial ‘natural history’ of preventive methods.
The framework evolved iteratively as it was applied to
a succession of Safer Cities schemes (acting in fact
like a ‘learning engine’ which steadily improved its
fine-detailed tracking of reality as it assimilated itself
to a larger sample of preventive action). The result
was more complex than alternative frameworks, but
this was considered worthwhile in view of the greater
rigour and scope it offered.
The framework was originally published in 1994 in
Crime Prevention Studies under the title Proximal
Circumstances (reflecting its coverage of the
immediate causes of criminal events and including
those acting through both offender and crime
situation). Crime prevention and community safety
continued to grow in the UK, particularly with the
preparation for what became the Crime & Disorder
Act 1998 which established statutory local crime and
disorder reduction partnerships. Work on guidance,
education and training for practitioners was discussed
in national fora and working groups, and then
published.
At this time Proximal Circumstances was rebranded
as the Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity to reflect
its extension from purely academic to practitionerfriendly orientation (the exact moment was when
walking towards Oslo Harbour in discussion with
Ron Clarke in July 1997) and the ‘ray and shield’
graphics developed (see Ekblom 2000). In 2001 the
Home Office commissioned the development of a
range of toolkits for crime prevention practitioners
and these were accompanied by the website material
2
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
introducing CCO at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.
gov.uk/20100413151441/http://www.crimereduction.
homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/cco.htm (and see
Ekblom 2001). Worked examples describing theft
from cars and assaults in CCO terms are at: http://
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100413151441/
crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/learningzone/cco01.
htm and www.crimereduction.gov.uk/learningzone/
cco02.htm.
Since that time, CCO has pushed its frontier into
organised crime, drugs, terrorism, restorative justice
and most recently Design Against Crime. An interest
in emergence is motivating the extension of CCO from
the bottom up (immediate causes of individual criminal
events) to connect with more complex phenomena
and processes involving networks, markets etc at a
range of ecological levels. The original CCO materials
contained much information about the ‘preventive
process’ which has since been hived off into the 5Is
framework. Indeed, in that process model, CCO now
comes under Intelligence (causes) and Interventions.
3
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
References
Ekblom, P. (2011) Crime Prevention, Security and Community Safety Using the 5Is Framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan. www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=296569
Ekblom. P. (2010) ‘The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity Theory’. Sage Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention.
Ekblom, P. (2000). ‘The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity - a Tool for Clear, ‘Joined-up’ Thinking about Community Safety
and Crime Reduction’ in Ballintyne, S, Pease, K and McLaren, V (eds.), Secure foundations: Key issues in crime prevention,
crime reduction and community safety. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
Ekblom, P. (2001). The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity: a Framework for Crime Reduction Toolkits (full text) Crime
Reduction website. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100413151441/http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.
uk/learningzone/cco.htm
Tilley, N (1993). After Kirkholt: Theory, Methods and Results of Replication Evaluations. (Crime Prevention Unit Paper 47.)
London, UK: Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcpu47.pdf.
The main documents relating to CCO are on a separate page on this website [CCO Classic – Detailed Documentation]
4
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity - CCO in diagram form
5
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
6
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
7
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
CCO in table form
Table 1 Basic causes and intervention principles
Immediate causes of criminal event
Possible interventions in cause
1. Criminality (predisposition to offend)
Longer-term psychological features of offender
including:
• Aggression
• Antisocial attitudes
• Criminal self-image or reputation
• Habits or standing decisions
• Drug addiction
Reducing criminality through:
• Early /developmental intervention - tackling risk
and protective factors
• Remedial intervention (convicted/ cautioned/ at
risk young people)
At various ecological levels especially
• Family
• Schools
• Friends
• Treatment in prisons, probation and medicine
relating to prevention of recidivism
2. Lack of resources to avoid crime
Social and intellectual skills to:
• Avoid conflicts
• Exercise self-control
• De-escalate fights
• Earn a legitimate living and achieve esteem and
social inclusion
Supplying skills to avoid crime:
• Training offenders in social skills
• Training in practical/ work skills
• Contacts with preventers - mentors, minders and
models
3. Readiness to offend
Short-term influences on people’s mood or motivation
• Current life circumstances including
unemployment or homelessness
• Needing risk, excitement, esteem
• Recent events such as a domestic argument
• Being in a particular emotional state such as anger
• Being disinhibited through alcohol or drugs
Reducing readiness to offend:
• Control of disinhibitors eg alcohol
• Control of stressors/ motivators
• Tackling debt, unemployment, housing problems
etc
• Resolving prior conflicts
• Satisfaction of psychological and social needs
legitimately
• Esteem
• Inclusion
8
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
Immediate causes of criminal event
Possible interventions in cause
4. Resources for committing crime:
These help offenders reduce risk and effort, increase
reward, control conscience, by exploiting vulnerability
of target, enclosure and environment, avoiding/
overcoming preventers, exploiting promoters, and
networking with co-offenders
• Skills
• Inside knowledge
• Repertoire of Modus Operandi
• Tools
• Weapons
• Transport
• Ability to overcome moral inhibitions
• Physical strength and social skills for intimidation/
deceit
• Access to trusted network of collaborators (crime
promoters)
Restricting resources:
Control of/ screening for/ design of
• Weapons
• Tools
• Information on target’s attractiveness and
vulnerability
• Know-how/ MOs
5. Decision to commit offence
Offender’s immediate anticipation of / response to:
• Risk
• Effort
• Reward
• Conscience
• Provocation
Deterrence
• Increase perceived risk of getting caught
• Increase perceived costs of getting caught
• Formal – arrest and punishment
• Informal – shame
• Personal – guilt
• Discouragement
• Increase perceived effort
• Reduce perceived reward
And more strategic decisions on whether this kind of
crime, or the criminal career, are worthwhile
6. Offender presence in situation
• Routine activities of offender
• Crime attractors – motivated to look for crime
there (see environment, enclosure)
• Free to enter or circulate in crime situation
• No detectable traces left
Control of criminal organisations:
• Recruitment
• Growth
• Efficiency
Excluding offenders from crime situation
• Segregating conflicting groups
• Closing roads and paths
• Attracting offenders elsewhere
• Exclusion of specific offenders
• Enhancing traceability
9
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
Immediate causes of criminal event
Possible interventions in cause
7a. Target property
‘Hot product’ (Clarke 1999) Object, service, system or
information that is
• Concealable
• Removable
• Accessible
• Valuable
• Enjoyable
• Disposable
Reducing target vulnerability/ attraction
• Target hardening
• Concealment
• Target removal
• Value reduction
• Reducing provocativeness
• Property identification
(Mobile phone = typical example)
7b. Target person
(Passive aspects of person who is the target in him/
herself, as with revenge or honour assaults, or who
becomes target in course of robbery of property.
Active aspects are covered under ‘preventers and
promoters’)
• Vulnerable
• Accessible
• Provocative (take care over this!)
Reducing target vulnerability/ attraction
• Target absence/avoidance
• Reducing provocation (careful)
8. Target enclosure
Compound, building, room, container, ATM lobby that
is
• Vulnerable to penetration at its entry point or its
boundary
• Has a vulnerable interior
• Contains attractive and vulnerable targets
Perimeter/ access security
• Adding enclosure and access
• Control of perimeter
• Control of access
• Screening at entrances/ exits
• Control of interior
9. Wider environment
Housing estates, town centres, transport interchanges,
which encourage crime because they are:
Logistically/ tactically favourable for the offender
and for crime promoters, unfavourable for crime
preventers
• Concealment/surveillance (sight / sound)
• Rationale for legitimately being present – ‘cover’
• Escape/pursuit
• Presence of promoters offering support/ turning
blind eye
Environmental design and management
• ‘Defensible space’ principles
• Aiding surveillance
• Intelligently planned lighting
• Setting/ communicating rules
• Conflict reduction (eg sound insulation)
May attract the offence, or motivate it through the
presence of
• Attractive or vulnerable targets
• Conflict – such as a place where rival gangs fight
for control over drug outlets
10
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
Immediate causes of criminal event
Possible interventions in cause
10. Crime preventers
Potential victims, strangers, employees,
police, probation, prison, private security staff,
acquaintances, intimates who make crime less likely
by playing active, or potentially active, roles involving
• Shaping the situation or influencing the offender in
advance of the criminal event (concealing phone,
locking car doors when driving etc)
• Intervening during the criminal event
• Reacting after it (to make next event less likely)
Boost preventers’ presence, competence,
motivation/responsibility
• Extra surveillance of enclosed and wider
environments
• Aids for preventers - alarms, CCTV
• Cultivating/ protecting witnesses and informants
• Informal social control
• Formal control
• Self-protection and avoidance
Factors which
• Alert
• Inform
• Motivate and
• Empower preventers (with knowledge, skills, tools,
eg forensic kit, CCTV) and perhaps
• Direct them (objectives, standards, regulations)
11. Crime promoters
Make crime more likely, by unwittingly, carelessly or
deliberately
• Shaping the situation or influencing the offender
(supplying weapons, tools or information, inducing
the offender’s cooperation by illegal threat or
reward, promising to buy stolen goods, promising
to look away (corruption)
• Intervening during the criminal event (giving
encouragement, distracting the victim or
preventers)
• Reacting after it (helping dispose of stolen goods
and weapons, providing an alibi etc)
Discouraging/deterring promoters:
• Naming and shaming
• Civil/ criminal liability
• Tackling a criminal subculture
• Market reduction for stolen goods
• Procedural controls
Factors which
• Lull
• Deter and discourage
• Hinder promoters
11
Design Against Crime Papers
Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity – Classic
Table 2 Dynamic and emergent causes
Factors Bringing the Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity Together – emergent causes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Environmental processes - hot spots
Lifestyles and routine activities of offenders and victims
Market processes - demand for goods or illegal services
Niches for offending careers and criminal service providers such as fences
Planning and action by the offender or offending organisation - creating the opportunity
Social relations between the roles – including conflict, gang turf
Crime as a process
• Mutual perceptions, expectations and interdependent decisions (as in game theory) of the roles of
offender, preventer and promoter
• Move and countermove in pursuit of goals
• Displacement
• Longer-term arms races
• Offender replacement
• Scenes and scripts – complex, multi-stage crimes (further developed in CCO Dynamic)
• Preparation (eg steal getaway car, forge passport)
• Execution (eg rob bank)
• Escape and covering tracks (eg destroy DNA evidence, launder money)
• Consummation (spend/enjoy)
• Crime ‘businesses’ – repeated, organised offending
12